logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2021.03.23 2021고단3
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 1, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a fine for a violation of road traffic law (drinking driving), on August 1, 2008, a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 as a fine for the same crime in the same court, on September 14, 2009, a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine for the same crime in the Daegu District Court racing support, and on April 1, 2013, a summary order of KRW 5,00,000 as a fine for the same crime was issued.

On November 20, 2020, the Defendant driven a D QM6 car under the influence of alcohol leveling to 0.092% of alcohol leveling from approximately 15km away from the road front of the Daegu-gu Parking Site B located in Seogu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, to the west-gu, North-gu, North-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul-gu, to the west-gu, North-ro, North-gu, North-gu, North-gu, North-gu, Seoul-do, 202.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking alcohol driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of written inquiries about criminal history and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2(1) and 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020) on criminal facts

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. In light of the records and frequency of the same criminal punishment for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the punishment is to be imposed as imprisonment with prison labor, and the Defendant’s age, career, etc. was considered.

arrow